This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

The 17th amendment truly screwed up the system. The states lost their voice in Washington and the federal government has been grabbing more and more power ever since. The government we have today is a far cry from what the founders intended.

Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston

The 17th amendment truly screwed up the system. The states lost their voice in Washington and the federal government has been grabbing more and more power ever since. The government we have today is a far cry from what the founders intended.

I'll agree there wasn't enough good reason at the time to enact the 17th amendment and it watered down the states legislative representation in Congress. But it was believed at the time that electing senators would tone down the bureaucracy in DC and prevent corruption.

The proponents argued "Awaken, in the senators...a more acute sense of responsibility to the people," which it was felt they lacked; election through state legislatures was seen as an anachronism that was out of step with the wishes of the American people, and one that had led to the Senate becoming "a sort of aristocratic body - too far removed from the people, beyond their reach, and with no special interest in their welfare". And the opponents response was "that the people were both a less permanent and a less trusted body than state legislatures, and that moving the responsibility for the election of senators to them would see it passing into the hands of a body that "[lasted] but a day" before changing." I assume meaning that populist voting is of little depth, fleeting and less substantial in change or effect. It was also seen as a threat to the rights and independence of the states, who were "sovereign, entitled...to have a separate branch of Congress...to which they could send their ambassadors". This was countered by the argument that a change in the mode in which senators were elected would not change their responsibilities. It was through populist appeal that the 17th amendment was ultimately passed.

It seems there should be a way for the states to have more direct input in Washington because with the lack of check on Congress it allows the Federal government too much centralized power. Not only are senators now free to ignore the needs of their state, "they have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty." Though we need state impact in DC without suffering an elitist body that feels no responsibility to the people they represent. And I could definitely see corruption being a bigger problem in today's world than back in 1913, especially through the influence of corporate lobbying. Though it's argued the other way around as far as lobbyists for interest groups I don't agree because of the financial power of the national based market could focus their efforts on the Federal government and the many state legislatures. I feel the only way to tell would be to reform or repeal the 17th and see what happens.

This is a good example of where the people may have screwed up the system or actually improved it?

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

There's obviously a discord in the US, especially about our system of governing and politcal party choices. A Presidential Election is coming up and it looks like our choices for chief leader will be Obama and either Gingrich or Romney. Is anyone really happy with those choices? And if not why don't we have better ones? Does the system not provide them or do we not recognize them? I say possibly both in that the career campaigners, rally big money contributors and inside party allies and that people want to hear pretty lies rather than the truth. Harry Truman once had a reporter exclaim "Give 'em Hell Harry"! He whipped around and replied "I'm not going to give 'em Hell I'm going to tell them the truth and they're going to think it's Hell".

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

The US government is IMO one of the most fair systems of governing ever devised in human history. Yet somehow we're seeing a growing corruption within.

I think we need to look at how technology changes society. The technology changes and people do not and then there are unpredicted side effects.

Consider a slightly silly thought experiment. What would the replicator technology from Star Trek do to society and the economy. But didn't Henry Ford give us replicatior technology with the moving assembly line and the Model-T? In 1900 there were 8000 cars in the United States. In 1995 there were 200,000,000.

But when was the last time you heard economists say how much we lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year? Henry Ford did not start planned obsolescence though. The unpredicted side effect of replicator technology.

Then after World War II we got television. What did TV do to baby boomers? LBJ began complaining about what TV was doing to politics in the late 60s. So the media gave the money people a handle on politicians that was not so big before.

Of course we cannot forget to give Keynes credit for the new ideas he gave to economists. But economists talk about GDP and never mention NDP. This century has given consumers technology that never existed before but economists treat $30,000 automobiles just like $3 hamburgers.

So how many politicians know when economists are talking complete BS?

Now we can give grade school kids computers more powerful than 1980s mainframes. Will they have more effect than automobiles?

The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood

So maybe we now have the Perfect Storm with so many simultaneous things happening that no one knows what is going on.

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

The people for thinking their world is somehow especially screwed up in comparison with the past. It's not. So yes, the people are at fault. Damned fools.

Edit: oh look. It's a two year old thread. My answer stays the same apparently. But I bet 10 years from now every other poster in this thread will still be under the impression that their age is so damned awful, unlike anything else.

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

I think we need to look at how technology changes society. The technology changes and people do not and then there are unpredicted side effects.

Consider a slightly silly thought experiment. What would the replicator technology from Star Trek do to society and the economy. But didn't Henry Ford give us replicatior technology with the moving assembly line and the Model-T? In 1900 there were 8000 cars in the United States. In 1995 there were 200,000,000.

But when was the last time you heard economists say how much we lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year? Henry Ford did not start planned obsolescence though. The unpredicted side effect of replicator technology.

Then after World War II we got television. What did TV do to baby boomers? LBJ began complaining about what TV was doing to politics in the late 60s. So the media gave the money people a handle on politicians that was not so big before.

Of course we cannot forget to give Keynes credit for the new ideas he gave to economists. But economists talk about GDP and never mention NDP. This century has given consumers technology that never existed before but economists treat $30,000 automobiles just like $3 hamburgers.

So how many politicians know when economists are talking complete BS?

Now we can give grade school kids computers more powerful than 1980s mainframes. Will they have more effect than automobiles?

The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood

So maybe we now have the Perfect Storm with so many simultaneous things happening that no one knows what is going on.

psik

Technology is a part of evolution and change. It's coming whether the elder generation likes it or not. How much we try to insert into every aspect of our existence will be the coming test. I'm a big proponent of advancement but not necessarily of replacing computer and machine technology for human interaction.

Hopefully coming generations will see the problem and adapt by using technology more efficiently and in sync with nature.

Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

Originally Posted by grip

Technology is a part of evolution and change. It's coming whether the elder generation likes it or not. How much we try to insert into every aspect of our existence will be the coming test. I'm a big proponent of advancement but not necessarily of replacing computer and machine technology for human interaction.

Hopefully coming generations will see the problem and adapt by using technology more efficiently and in sync with nature.

I'm fine with change, I just wish it didn't have to happen so fast. I feel no need to constantly update everything every nine months.

If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Re: Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

Originally Posted by grip

There is obviously a growing problem in today's politics. Whether it's a disconnect with candidates and elected officials or disenfranchised voters. The US government is IMO one of the most fair systems of governing ever devised in human history. Yet somehow we're seeing a growing corruption within. Is it from indefinite term limits, creating cronyism and career politicians? Is it from virtually unlimited candidate funding, allowing groups of concentrated wealth influence peddling? Is it the lobby's who through unimpeded access gain inside favoritism and no-bid contracts? Is it Party or Partisan Politics unable to compromise relying on ideology more than practical reasoning? I'm curious is it our system of governing that's flawed or are our people too self interested or a little of both? Let the debate begin.

This isn't the first time that this has happened and probably won't be the last. I think it's more a human nature issue of repeating past mistakes.

Guidelines are created and checks on corporate influence and people after decades of having those protections begin to forget why they were put there in the first place and self interested groups start making the argument to rip away those protections...and then everybody is back to a corrupt government ran on money....then eventually they get fed up and do something....and put in new guidelines and checks and repeater.

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes